Kildare farmer objects to €8bn Intel investment...

MrMusician18 · 04-07-2019 4:40pm

Boggles wrote: »

That's bollix, just Tourism and Argi Food combined is about a 20-25 billion industry. Take away "the local" economy and you don't have an economy.

What that has to do with an arm of state illegally taking a working farm off a law abiding citizen and handing it to a private company what ever their standing, I have no idea.

That is not the common good, very bad in fact.

Indeed, but what had that got to do with an unrelated planning objection.

This place is actually mad. I never thought I'd actually have to defend an organization that willing to invest 8bn in a facility that will secure thousands of good jobs for a decade.

The same people will be giving out that "the man" has it in for the ordinary wurker if Intel are so frustrated by this process that they go somewhere else.

Boggles · 04-07-2019 4:44pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed, but what had that got to do with an unrelated planning objection.

I have all ready explained it to you more than once.

He believes if they expand they will come for his land again and this time they will get it.

He is entitled under our law to object.

He hasn't broken any laws. He is entitled to do what he is doing.

That clear enough?

MrMusician18 · 04-07-2019 4:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

I have all ready explained it to you more than once.

He believes if they expand they will come for his land again and this time they will get it.

He is entitled under our law to object.

He hasn't broken any laws. He is entitled to do what he is doing.

That clear enough?

What he believes is not founded in any evidence. There is nothing to suggest they will try to cpo him again.

Because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What is true is that if this goes to court after ABP, Intel will most likely leave, they don't have the time in such a competitive commercial space to be held up. Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

This is what it boils down to, one man's unfounded fear for retaining his land on one side vs billions of euro in tax revenue and 5000 good jobs on the other.

Boggles · 04-07-2019 5:01pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What he believes is not founded in any evidence. There is nothing to suggest they will try to cpo him again.

Because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What is true is that if this goes to court after ABP, Intel will most likely leave, they don't have the time in such a competitive commercial space to be held up. Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

This is what it boils down to, one man's unfounded fear for retaining his land on one side vs billions of euro in tax revenue and 5000 good jobs on the other.

You seem to have a problem with the law. That ain't Thomas Reid's fault.

There will be an election soon, make sure you mention it on the door.

Plumbthedepths · 04-07-2019 5:08pm

HopsAndJumps wrote:

Private business.... And thousands of workers and the country as a whole.

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

McMurphy · 04-07-2019 5:38pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

That's what I took from the documentary/film.

A hospital, a school, maybe even an airport runway or a bypass or motorway, but there's no way that the constitution should be trumped by big business.

What next, Tesco evicting whole apartment complexes to make way for a Tesco extra?

Boggles · 04-07-2019 5:57pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

Depends how you define victory, especially in terms of the "greater good" or "common good".

For the record any muldoon 100 miles up the country making frivolous objections should be fired out of a canon, In my humble opinion.

That said I firmly believe we got bad knee jerk legislation off the back off that incident that we will all pay for it in the next 5-10-15 years.

I also had a major problem with Leo meeting with Tim Cooke to discuss a case that was in the middle of judicial review, that shouldn't happen. That is an absolute no no.

But then again Leo can label an elected official a Paedo and then try laugh it off, so I suppose it's to be expected.

HopsAndJumps · 04-07-2019 6:19pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

Can you argue my supposedly hyperbolic statement rather than just saying its exaggerated?

Lets just take the direct Intel employees from the new building. Excluding the approximately 3k jobs from support staff and contract workers and lets exclude the current 5000 blue badge workers currently in Intel.

So a rough guess at an Intel average wage is about 50k an arbitrary number, in reality its probably much higher.

That works out at 14k tax per worker x 1800 = 25.2 million euro in tax that go into public services. Then there is the rest of those wages, which get spent on goods further fueling the economy. Plus the corporation tax that's paid (which is probably a lot less than 12.5% unfortunately)

Plumbthedepths · 04-07-2019 6:27pm

HopsAndJumps wrote:

Lets just take the direct Intel employees from the new building. Excluding the approximately 3k jobs from support staff and contract workers and lets exclude the current 5000 blue badge workers currently in Intel.

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

Boggles · 04-07-2019 7:00pm

It actually begs the question how many illegal acquisitions have the IDA actual carried out since 1986.

HopsAndJumps · 04-07-2019 8:11pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

In a debate, when asked a question, the typical response is the answer the question and not change the subject and reply with a question of your own. Fair summation?

In short 'no' is my answer. I'll elaborate once you reply to what I asked.

Plumbthedepths · 04-07-2019 8:16pm

HopsAndJumps wrote:

In a debate, when asked a question, the typical response is the answer the question and not change the subject and reply with a question of your own. Fair summation?

I did answer your question, in my opinion the wants of private business does not trump the property rights of a private citizen. The common good refers to society not private enterprise.

HopsAndJumps · 04-07-2019 8:22pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did answer your question, in my opinion the wants of private business does not trump the property rights of a private citizen. The common good refers to society not private enterprise.

I asked you to explain how Intel's contribution to tax through workers is exaggerated. That has not been answered.

Plumbthedepths · 04-07-2019 8:30pm

HopsAndJumps wrote:

I asked you to explain how Intel's contribution to tax through workers is exaggerated. That has not been answered.

I should have worded that response better, your comment was irrelevant rather than hyperbolic the tax take has no relevance to the constitutional property rights of a private citizen. Hope that clears things up for you. I will say this however TR has taught many that not everyone has a price.

HopsAndJumps · 04-07-2019 9:10pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I should have worded that response better, your comment was irrelevant rather than hyperbolic the tax take has no relevance to the constitutional property rights of a private citizen. Hope that clears things up for you. I will say this however TR has taught many that not everyone has a price.

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

puppieperson1 · 04-07-2019 9:22pm

Guys he was just a man of principle and maybe not everyone in ireland believes we should lie down an allow the americans walk all over us. He took his stand and won and i respect him. The americans feel they have a cart blanche to do whatever they like wherever they like and their arrogance is abominable.

end of the road · 04-07-2019 10:13pm

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

It could be argued that about 5000 jobs not the common good. High wage jobs, high tax going back into the economy to fund services, is that not the common good?

See the difference?

it's not enough of a common good to allow the likes of the IDA to trample over the citizen or to allow land grabs for private companies, private companies who could be gone in a flash, possibly even leaving the tax payer to pick up the pieces depending on the industry and the company.

Seth Brundle · 04-07-2019 10:28pm

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

Hang on. Intel had difficulties because of a slump in pc sales and issues with security, speed and then the disaster in terms of mobile chips. Absolutely nothing to do with our recession despite your post aiming to link the two.

Now if you think a company's interests trump those of the individual then do you believe that a blocking apartments should be taken to build a multi storey car park? Yes or no?

end of the road · 04-07-2019 10:41pm

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

all of this is irrelevant to the fact that the person's rights come before that of a private company. investment, jobs, good of the country, come second in such cases.

deravarra · 05-07-2019 5:43am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

I love the way you call thousands of jobs "a few".
Let's not forget that one job could be supporting a family of perhaps 3 or 4 people, maybe more. So, those 8,000 (5,000 direct and 3,000 contingent) jobs could be supporting 24,000 to 32,000 people or more.

Now, does that equate to a few?

Boggles · 05-07-2019 9:05am

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

He didn't always live beside Intel, they moved in beside him.

Brian? · 05-07-2019 9:19am

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Surely a question like that is rhetorical? Everyone in the country took cuts! Your facetious parting shot shows at least you are beginning to absorb what I'm saying and it's not sitting easy with you.

Like most of this thread, you are directing towards the wrong focus, I urge you to direct your vitriol towards the Corporations and their facilitators, I'm just a very small local employer.

I worked at Intel through the recession. I got bonuses and pay raises every year, except 2011 where I only got bonuses and no pay rise.

So no, everyone in the country didn't take cuts. We were actually grand. That's the high quality of job Intel provides.

Brian? · 05-07-2019 9:23am

Why are people still arguing the CPO. No one is trying to CPO his land anymore.

Intel don't need the land anyway.

Boggles · 05-07-2019 9:24am

Brian? wrote: »

So no, everyone in the country didn't take cuts. We were actually grand. That's the high quality of job Intel provides.

Were you exempt from the tax rises and lack of investment in services too?

Brian? · 05-07-2019 9:30am

Boggles wrote: »

Were you exempt from the tax rises and lack of investment in services too?

Yep. My pay rises outstripped the tax increases.

Boggles · 05-07-2019 9:31am

Brian? wrote: »

Yep. My pay rises outstripped the tax increases.

That was a 2 part question.

You answered the first part. Not the second I notice.

Ush1 · 05-07-2019 11:09am

Keep fighting "da man" comrades. It's all a bit sad really.

Brian? · 05-07-2019 11:37am

Boggles wrote: »

That was a 2 part question.

You answered the first part. Not the second I notice.

The 2nd part was entirely subjective. I didn’t feel the impact in cuts to public expenditure. So how do I answer it?

The assertion I was rebutting was that everyone suffered cuts, with the implication being it was cuts to take home pay.

McMurphy · 05-07-2019 11:55am

Brian? wrote: »

Why are people still arguing the CPO. No one is trying to CPO his land anymore.

Intel don't need the land anyway.

I think some people think the way the attempted cpo was carried out was both underhanded, and worrying that a state agency would operate in such shady circumstances.

Boggles · 05-07-2019 12:09pm

Brian? wrote: »

The 2nd part was entirely subjective. I didn’t feel the impact in cuts to public expenditure. So how do I answer it?

The assertion I was rebutting was that everyone suffered cuts, with the implication being it was cuts to take home pay.

You did receive a cut to take home pay, it's moot you got a pay rise.

Now his assertion was "everyone suffered cuts", which probably isn't entirely true. But it would be close enough, I'd be pretty sure he didn't just mean wages.

But If the recession and what it caused had absolute no effect on you at all during it or now. Then fair dues.

I can't imagine it didn't though. Unless you have lived in a tent, hunting your own food the past decade.

Kildare farmer objects to €8bn Intel investment...

Comments